On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>
> ls rrunner*
> should show me not only the implementation [.c + .h] but also
> the configuration.
I agree with you, but only if we _always_ have one config file per driver.
Which is not necessarily the wrong thing to do.
But as long as most drivers
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>
> Another suggestion about naming:
> Take for example drivers/net:
> cat Config.* | wc => 2149 lines
>
> A bit a structure could be needed here.
> Net.conf <= Name equals directory with upper-case first letter
> - Cover the whole directory, and e
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
>
> stick with TCL/TK, like xconfig currently uses ?
Too ugly. I actually think QT is a fine choice, I just suspect that it's
going to cause political issues.
My favourite approach by far is to actually not ship anything graphical
with the kernel at all
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Roman Zippel wrote:
>
> Linus, do you have any interest in merging it in the near future? If
> not, what's missing?
I'm not super-excited about this, partly because of the brouhaha last time
around on this issue.
This has reasonably distributed config files, and puts the he
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>
> Where comes the requirement that we shall keep the existing shell
> based config parsers?
I use them exclusively.
It is far and away the most convenient parsing - just to do "make
oldconfig" (possibly by making changes by hand to the .config file
On Sat, 29 Dec 2001, Keith Owens wrote:
>
> Yes, some of the problems with mkdep can be fixed in the current design
> but there is one problem that is inherently unfixable. make dep is a
> manual process so it relies on users knowing when they have to rerun
> make dep AND THEY DON'T DO IT!
Don'
On Fri, 28 Dec 2001, Legacy Fishtank wrote:
>
> A per-driver metadata file is IMHO clearly the preferred solution.
Note that it doesn't need to be per-driver: there are good reasons to have
"combined" files too. For example, things like "architecture config" could
all be in one file, along with
On Fri, 28 Dec 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> It would certainly fit nicely with the existing metadata. We already rip out
> code comments via kernel-doc, and extending it to rip out
>
> - Help text
> - Web site
...
No no no.
The comments can at least be helpful to programmer
On Fri, 28 Dec 2001, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>
> OK. Background, for anyone who doesn't know this: the equivalent of
> Configure.help in CML2 is the symbols.cml file. It's actually generated
> fat CML2 installation time from Configure.help.
Oh, crap, _another_ magic global file.
Eric, this is
On Fri, 28 Dec 2001, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Legacy Fishtank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Note I am specifically NOT talking about MAINTAINERS and CREDITS.
> > -PLEASE- don't obscure my point by mentioning them.
>
> It's the same problem, Jeff. Same solution, too.
It's not.
We already have pre-fi
On Fri, 28 Dec 2001, Legacy Fishtank wrote:
>
> I think one thing to note is that dependencies is that if you are smart
> about it, dependencies -really- do not even change when your .config
> changes.
Absolutely. I detest "gcc -MD", exactly because it doesn't get this part
right. "mkdep.c" gets
On Fri, 28 Dec 2001, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>
> I'm not certain what you're objecting to, and I want to understand it.
> There are rules that use architecture symbols to suppress things like
> bus types. I presume that's not a problem for you, but tell me if it is.
It _is_ a problem for me, bec
On Fri, 28 Dec 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > So if somebody really wants to help this, make scripts that generate
> > config files AND Configure.help files from a distributed set. And once you
> > do that, you could even imagine creating the old-style config files
>
> Something like:
>
> find
[ Btw, Jeff, any reason why you changed your name to "Legacy Fishtank"? It
took a few mails before I noticed that it also said "garzik" in the
fine print;]
One thing that this big flame-war has brought up is that different people
like different things. There may be a simpler solution to this
On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, Andre Hedrick wrote:
>
> Lots of luck ... please pass your crack pipe arounds so the rest of us
> idiots can see your vision or lack of ...
Heh. I think I must have passed it on to you long ago, and you never gave
it back, you sneaky bastard ;)
The vision, btw, is to get th
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Keith Owens wrote:
>
> Linus, the time has come to convert the 2.5 kernel to kbuild 2.5.
We're getting the block IO layer in shape first, the time has not come for
_anything_ else before that.
Linus
___
kbuild-dev
16 matches
Mail list logo
